User contributions for HighPriestOfSaturn

This account is currently blocked. (Show block details) The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

07:58, 3 March 2024 Cullen328 talk contribs changed block settings for HighPriestOfSaturn talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: Edit warring, pledging to create sock puppets into the indefinite future)

View full log

Search for contributionsshowhide

⧼contribs-top⧽

Username, IP address or CIDR range:

Namespace:

Invert selection

Associated namespace

Tag filter:

Invert selection

Only show edits that are latest revisions

Only show edits that are page creations

Hide minor edits

⧼contribs-date⧽

From date:

To date:

Show only edits pending review

Hide probably good edits

00:3600:36, 3 March 2024 diff hist +1,277‎ User talk:HighPriestOfSaturn ‎ →‎Battleground editing: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply

16:5716:57, 2 March 2024 diff hist +349‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ →‎Genre warring on Led Zeppelin III: Reply Tag: Reply
16:5416:54, 2 March 2024 diff hist +286‎ User talk:HighPriestOfSaturn ‎ →‎Battleground editing: Reply Tag: Reply
16:5316:53, 2 March 2024 diff hist +687‎ User talk:HighPriestOfSaturn ‎ →‎Battleground editing: Reply Tag: Reply
16:3916:39, 2 March 2024 diff hist +592‎ User talk:HighPriestOfSaturn ‎ →‎Battleground editing: Reply Tag: Reply
16:3516:35, 2 March 2024 diff hist +867‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ →‎Genre warring on Led Zeppelin III: Reply Tag: Reply
16:3016:30, 2 March 2024 diff hist +7‎ Led Zeppelin III ‎ Undid revision 1211446561 by Geardona (talk) This user reverts my changes, first in a WP:GAME tactic, he tries to use Lavalizard101 as "good faith". When that does not work, he claims my edit is "non-constructive". And yet, it is. I am arguing for a genre change and I have a source and argument for it, that has not been refuted. Tags: Undo Reverted
16:2716:27, 2 March 2024 diff hist +391‎ User talk:HighPriestOfSaturn ‎ →‎Battleground editing: Reply Tag: Reply
16:2616:26, 2 March 2024 diff hist +7‎ Led Zeppelin III ‎ Undid revision 1211445427 by Geardona (talk) Geardona reverts my changes because according to him, Lavalizard101 is "good faith". WP:GAME. Tags: Undo Reverted
16:2216:22, 2 March 2024 diff hist +507‎ User talk:HighPriestOfSaturn ‎ →‎Battleground editing: Reply Tag: Reply
16:1916:19, 2 March 2024 diff hist +168‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ →‎Genre warring on Led Zeppelin III: Reply Tag: Reply
16:1816:18, 2 March 2024 diff hist +7‎ Led Zeppelin III ‎ Undid revision 1211443744 by Lavalizard101 (talk) So user Lavalizard101 can revert my changes for no reason, and I am called the genre warrior? So that it looks like I'm the one being disruptive when I am the one presenting a case, and detractors simply pull down my changes and make no reason for it? Tags: Undo Reverted
16:1316:13, 2 March 2024 diff hist +980‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ →‎Genre warring on Led Zeppelin III: Reply Tag: Reply
16:0316:03, 2 March 2024 diff hist +7‎ Led Zeppelin III ‎ Again, my source is Rolling Stone. It defines this album as trippy folk. Trippy and psychedelic are mutually interchangeable words. Psychedelic folk is a loosely defined genre, can be called many things besides explicitly "psychedelic". Therefore, this album is a psychedelic folk album, as per the article cited by Tkbrett. Any reversion deserves explained, reasonable changes or it is literally disruptive editing. I explain further on my talk page. Tags: Manual revert Reverted
15:5815:58, 2 March 2024 diff hist +3,790‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ →‎Genre warring on Led Zeppelin III: Reply Tag: Reply
07:2707:27, 2 March 2024 diff hist +571‎ User talk:HighPriestOfSaturn ‎ →‎February 2024: Reply Tag: Reply

15:2115:21, 1 March 2024 diff hist +7‎ Led Zeppelin III ‎ Undid revision 1211239738 by Babysharkboss2 (talk) It's trippy folk rock, also known as psychedelic folk rock. Tags: Undo Reverted
14:4314:43, 1 March 2024 diff hist +7‎ Led Zeppelin III ‎ As explained multiple times, the album is described as "trippy folk" in the article, this being synonymous with "psychedelic folk". My source for this genre change is the Rolling Stone article. Tag: Reverted
14:4114:41, 1 March 2024 diff hist +1,147‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ →‎Genre warring on Led Zeppelin III: Reply Tag: Reply
14:3514:35, 1 March 2024 diff hist +754‎ User talk:HighPriestOfSaturn ‎ →‎February 2024: Reply Tag: Reply
08:1908:19, 1 March 2024 diff hist +498‎ User talk:HighPriestOfSaturn ‎ →‎February 2024: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
08:1608:16, 1 March 2024 diff hist +7‎ Led Zeppelin III ‎ I'll say this slowly, because clearly I am not being heard, and so that ALL EDITORS/MODS SEE. One, my changes ARE sourced, per the primary Rolling Stone article which clearly, explicitly and conspicuously describes LZIII as TRIPPY (and "heady") FOLK (meaning psychedelic/spacey folk). Two: Why has Tkbrett, in his dishonest editing, ignored this point? He cannot refute it at all. He calls me a genre warrior, and yet he's the one trying to apply rigid, monolithic labels over something more nuanced. Tags: Manual revert Reverted Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit

05:2705:27, 28 February 2024 diff hist +7‎ Led Zeppelin III ‎ Undid revision 1210684658 by Carlinal (talk) This user keeps reverting changes without citing anything. Tags: Undo Reverted

22:4822:48, 26 February 2024 diff hist +7‎ Led Zeppelin III ‎ Undid revision 1210461394 by Carlinal (talk) Undid an unjustified revision. You have no grounds except being pouty. Tags: Undo Reverted
07:5707:57, 26 February 2024 diff hist +7‎ Led Zeppelin III ‎ In which case then, the Rolling Stone article itself CLEARLY and CONSPICUOUSLY describes this album as a psychedelic folk (literally "trippy folk" in big bold letters) project anyway, I don't know why your reading comprehension is so poor. It's probably because YOU are the real WP:GWAR, trying to apply monolithic and reductionist labels over a genre with a much more specific quality of folk rock, which is the psychedelic variety. Go listen to Bob Dylan, then listen to LZIII. You'll see. Tags: Reverted Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit

21:0221:02, 25 February 2024 diff hist −226‎ Led Zeppelin III ‎ Sorry, had to clean up again (because I reverted changes). Also I'll use this opportunity to mention: I don't know if this guy has listened to a lot of folk rock and psychedelic folk before, but there's a clear difference between Bob Dylan, PP&M and this album. This album is in the psych-folk strain of the likes of Tim Buckley. Many people, like myself, are searching for this kind of music. Editors like Tkbrett constrict us, with their reductionist views and difficult boomer attitudes. Tags: Manual revert Reverted references removed Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
20:5720:57, 25 February 2024 diff hist +646‎ Led Zeppelin III ‎ Undid revision 1210196231 by Tkbrett (talk) He tells me not to use Medium, per Wikipedia rules, and yet continues to use Rolling Stone, which is equally warned against. Secondly, he tries to beat around the bush by saying his article never "explicitly" claims it as psychedelic folk, ignoring the very conspicuous adjectives "trippy" and "heady" which both denote something drug-induced, or psychedelic. Surely y'all see he's being difficult. Tags: Undo Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
11:1411:14, 25 February 2024 diff hist −226‎ Led Zeppelin III ‎ Minor clean up. Tags: Reverted references removed Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit

3 March 2024

2 March 2024

1 March 2024

28 February 2024

26 February 2024

25 February 2024